I don't understand why people are judged on their win/loss. it is not their fault, I HAD a 60% win rate but for some reason recently I keep being placed in teams that have no clue and as such we lose and now my win/loss is in the 40%'s. in my opinion it has something to do with the match maker evening out players skill levels to make the matches fair. Anyway what is everyone elses opinion on this?

I don't understand why people are judged on their win/loss. it is not their fault, I HAD a 60% win rate but for some reason recently I keep being placed in teams that have no clue and as such we lose and now my win/loss is in the 40%'s. in my opinion it has something to do with the match maker evening out players skill levels to make the matches fair. Anyway what is everyone elses opinion on this?

You have 48% win ratio, which is perfectly average. You still have a relatively low amount of battles, so your win/loss ratio is easily influenced by even a short win/loss streak.

To be fair, if the player is very good or play in platoons, then in most cases he can pull his team out of it.

not true, i had many battles where i literally stomped enemies but if your teammates die like flies you can't do shit surrounded by 5 enemies. and i mean die for no reason i.e. no spotting, capping, whatever.

GroundTrooper, on 06 July 2012 - 02:15 PM, said:

A good player will on average have a higher winrate than a bad player regardless of matchmaking.

he also has to be resilient, calm, regular and always play to win. then yes. but theres very few of them.

Teams are random. Which means you dont get bad teams consistently, that's not what random means. If you get a bad WR over thousands of games, it's not because of the few bad teams you get from time to time. It's because of all the games in which you get an average team (and that's most of the time) and yet fail to do your job, which means you'll lose more often than not.
Random teams are average, they can't lose or win more often than not. What matters is the one non-random factor: you.

Yes, if he is one of top tanks. Old KV, VK3601 and such could easily get 6+ kills and win the game even if majority of the own team was clueless, and enemy team did not have equally good players on top.

Otherwise you can just get frustrated if you are T6/7 driving against T9/10.

I've never seen anyone mocked for the win/loss ratio -alone-. But I've seen players act like complete idiots and being called such. Then, someone with XVM would jump in and say "what do you expect from him, he's got 40% winrate or 600 efficiency" and so on. If your stats say that you're a bad player, you may question those (teams, bad luck, bad MM, etc). But if you're stats say you're bad and you act indeed like a bad player, odds are that you are a bad player. Finally, I see many tiers 10s with such 40% winrate and 600-700 efficiency. I honestly believe that, to have those stats at that tier, you'd have to actively work against your team. But that's just me..

the longer you play the more stable your w/l ratio will get. if you jsut have 1000 battles a 60% can still change very much
nevertheless w/l ratio on the long run tells if you are a helpfull player or not.
e.g. in 5000 battles there are more than enough chances to have a winning influence on the battle to get a positive ratio

a bad team with a good player is more likely to win, than a bad team with a bad player ...
so in the same battle, a team with a good player might win, whilst the same team with a bad player might lose.
that sums up ... believe it or not.

but with less than 3000 battles, the number might not be too telling. I was around 50% with 3000 battles as well.
the more influence the tanks you drive have on the battlefield, like being top tier, the more telling the win ratio gets.

Teams are random. Which means you dont get bad teams consistently, that's not what random means. If you get a bad WR over thousands of games, it's not because of the few bad teams you get from time to time. It's because of all the games in which you get an average team (and that's most of the time) and yet fail to do your job, which means you'll lose more often than not.Random teams are average, they can't lose or win more often than not. What matters is the one non-random factor: you.

bs.

Wot is not a coin that has two values. average team is different at different times of day/night. weak people when have loss streak tend to lower their skills at that moment which becomes even bigger factor for their W/L ratio lowering. theres much much more, for ex. premium account influences your W/L ratio simply by making grind easier/less frustrating, etc.

Care to explain? I dont use logic just for you to drop a 'BS' comment and be done with it.

Since teams are random, their cumulated skill level tends toward the expected value, which in our case, is 49% wr. Slightly less if we dont weight WR with number of battles played (there are more players with WR under 49% than their are players with WR over 49%) but the point is, this is true of both your teams and the ennemy teams. That's what random means.
Ofc, that's slightly less true of your teams since there is a non-random factor in them: you. So the ennemy teams' cumulated skill level tends toward 49% (or whatever the actual average WR is), while your teams' cumulated skill level tends toward 49% (or W/E) PLUS (or less) your own skill level (modified by your weight in the team, as in, a top list tank usually has much more influence than the small tier 4 at the bottom).

When 3 good players team up in a platoon, they easily get 70-80% winrate. Obviously, if 3 players can have such a huge influence on the outcome, so can a lone player, to a lesser extent ofc.

bs again. if youre lone good player and teamupped with 14 completely useless players against 15 enemy players that try to do something to win (they dont even have to be good at it) then youre doomed whatever you do. 10 or more kills per battle dont come cos of your dominance - its cos of your teammates made spotting for you, you were on right time in right place and probably got some luck

on the other hand ORGANIZED 3-man platton can have a notable influence on outcome cos this game promotes advantage in tank numbers of opposing forces. thats why plats are W/L ratio boosters.

Kampfiltis, on 06 July 2012 - 02:25 PM, said:

show me one player with a ratio over 1300 and a w/l ratio below 50% and I will be really really surprised

what that has anything to do with this topic??? make your post usefull more for future if you want discussion.
p.s. you find him yourself.

Care to explain? I dont use logic just for you to drop a 'BS' comment and be done with it.

Since teams are random, their cumulated skill level tends toward the expected value, which in our case, is 49% wr. Slightly less if we dont weight WR with number of battles played (there are more players with WR under 49% than their are players with WR over 49%) but the point is, this is true of both your teams and the ennemy teams. That's what random means.
Ofc, that's slightly less true of your teams since there is a non-random factor in them: you. So the ennemy teams' cumulated skill level tends toward 49% (or whatever the actual average WR is), while your teams' cumulated skill level tends toward 49% (or W/E) PLUS (or less) your own skill level (modified by your weight in the team, as in, a top list tank usually has much more influence than the small tier 4 at the bottom).

you still don't get one thing: WoT random battles are not ideal radom situations like in math, so as long as it applies to it, it doesn't define the outcome. that makes your calculations above invalid. p.s. WG fix your forum editor.

I think it's pathetic to judge a player's skill based his W/L ratio. It's a team game, so obviously if he has bad W/L ratio is because he is unfortunate enough to be teamed up with retarded teams most of the time. Not necessarily beacuse he's bad overall. One player hardly changes the outcome of a team match all by himself. Proof of this is those matches in which you can slay more than a third of the enemy team and still lose.

WG should definitely come up with some other method to measure a player's "Battle Effectiveness"...